Although the 2024 U.S. presidential election was expected to be one of the most evenly contested in history—similar to the elections of 2000, 2016, and 2020—and with predictions that the winner might not be known for days or even weeks, the outcome became clear on election night. Donald Trump decisively defeated Kamala Harris, achieving a resounding victory. It was the most convincing win for a Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan’s landslide in 1984. A red Republican wave swept through the country, with Trump winning all key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Georgia, and Arizona. He carried every swing state except New Hampshire, an extraordinary outcome.
Despite Trump being favored on betting markets, no one expected such a dominant performance. The final tally of 312–226 electoral votes in Trump’s favor marked a significant gap. Perhaps the biggest surprise was that Trump also won the popular vote, outpacing Harris by 2.3 million votes. This outcome exposed the inaccuracy of media-driven polls. Harris’s defeat, despite her initial frontrunner status, deserves a closer analysis.
An Unexpected Candidacy
After Joe Biden withdrew from the race on July 21 following a disastrous debate performance on June 27, his vice president, Kamala Harris, quickly secured the necessary support from key Democratic Party structures. Officially nominated as the party’s presidential candidate on August 5, Harris faced no primary competition, although the party could have opted to hold expedited primaries. Harris had certain advantages as a candidate: national recognition, political experience, her ethnic background (South Asian and Jamaican), and her modest middle-class upbringing. However, these were offset by numerous weaknesses.
Lack of Experience in Competitive Elections
Coming from California, a Democratic stronghold, Harris had limited experience competing against viable Republican candidates. The only exception was the 2010 race for California Attorney General, where she narrowly defeated a strong Republican opponent, Steve Cooley, by approximately 74,000 votes. As a favorite of the Democratic elite and a politician in a blue state, Harris never had to win over swing voters or battle for swing states. This lack of experience proved costly in the 2024 election.
“A New Generation of Leadership”
Harris launched her three-month campaign with the promise of delivering “a new generation of leadership.” She targeted women on abortion rights and sought to regain the working-class vote by focusing on economic issues such as rising living costs and affordable housing. In the early weeks of her candidacy, Harris enjoyed a boost from Democratic-leaning media and the celebrity world.
Initially seen as a refreshing change after Biden’s withdrawal, Harris failed to position herself as a true new face. As Biden’s vice president, she was closely tied to his administration, which many voters were deeply dissatisfied with. Economic problems (inflation and job losses) and immigration issues (millions of illegal migrants crossing the southern border unchecked) were major concerns that the Biden-Harris administration failed to address effectively.
A Difficult Starting Point
Biden’s approval ratings hovered around 40% for most of his presidency, with a majority of Americans believing the country was heading in the wrong direction. By 2021, many doubted Biden’s mental acuity and ability to serve in the Oval Office. Harris was thus in a no-win situation. Strongly distancing herself from Biden would have been perceived as betrayal, giving Republicans and Trump ammunition to exploit. On the other hand, fully embracing Biden’s legacy was equally damaging, as voters were dissatisfied with his policies.
Harris chose a middle ground, balancing support for Biden with attempts to highlight her individuality. While logical, this strategy ultimately failed. She could not convince voters she would lead the country better than Biden. Harris did little to alter the negative perception of the Biden-Harris administration and frequently undermined herself with awkward and bizarre gaffes during interviews and campaign events.
A Negative Campaign
Rather than focusing on her vision and ideas, Harris spent much of her campaign attacking Donald Trump. She pursued a negative campaign, believing fear of Trump would mobilize voters in her favor. Harris framed Trump as an existential threat to American democracy and portrayed herself as the protector of individual freedoms and the middle class.
However, many conservative and neutral voters viewed Harris and the Democrats as the ones undermining democracy, with intentions to impose a one-party system. In the final weeks of the campaign, out of desperation to gain an edge in the polls, Harris labeled Trump a fascist, a Nazi, and an unstable person, while courting anti-Trump Republicans. Yet, this strategy backfired, alienating many voters.
Lack of Vision
Although Harris had three months to campaign, she failed to focus on her own platform and strengths, which could have significantly improved her performance, even if victory remained unlikely. Her decision to avoid interviews during the first half of the campaign created the impression that she relied heavily on pre-written speeches and lacked independent ideas. This reinforced critics’ views of her as a bland candidate—a Democratic Party operative and representative of the so-called “deep state.” Adding to this was her lack of charisma. Voters did not see her as a leader, further diminishing her appeal.
Weak Support from Party Officials
Harris and her team lacked strong relationships with key Democratic Party officials, such as governors and mayors. Effective support from Democratic politicians in presenting Harris to their constituencies could have improved her results. However, many Democratic leaders failed to actively promote her, likely due to limited familiarity. It became evident that the support of grassroots activists and party officials mattered more than celebrity endorsements.
The Gaza War
The Gaza conflict deeply divided Democrats. Both Biden and Harris firmly supported Israel, which cost Harris votes among Arab Americans, particularly in states like Michigan and Ohio. More importantly, many young voters, who tend to lean pro-Palestinian and pro-Democrat, were alienated by her unwavering support for Israel, a position she could not or would not abandon.
Poor Outcomes
Harris lost support among key Democratic voter blocs compared to the 2020 election. While 53% of women voted for Harris, this was down from the 57% who supported Biden in 2020—a significant loss, given her campaign’s emphasis on women’s rights. She failed to win the majority of white women, securing only 46%, while Trump garnered 53%. Male support for Harris also dropped from 48% in 2020 to 42%. Among Latino voters, her support fell by 13%, African American voters by 2%, and voters under 30 by 6%.
Conclusion
In summary, an ill-conceived campaign riddled with gaffes and poor strategic decisions led to Kamala Harris’s defeat in the presidential election. The Democratic Party will need to conduct a thorough analysis of these issues to achieve better results in the 2026 congressional midterms and the 2028 presidential election. While much can be learned from defeat, it seems unlikely Harris will get another opportunity, as she squandered her chance to lead. It will be some other Democratic politician.
Author: Matija Šerić
Featured image: Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY-SA 2.0
